The Marrying Kind

Elizabeth Kristol

What would life be like if we were not allowed to marry? That is the
question at the heart of Andrew Sullivan's first book, Virtually Normal.
In a sharp departure from the brash tone of the New Republic, the
political weekly he edits, Sullivan here takes a sober look at the public
debate over homosexuality and offers a moving, often lyrical, plea for
the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Virtually Normal should be of special interest to conservatives.
For one thing, Sullivan has occasionally described himself as such. Second,
he is a Roman Catholic who has always taken matters of faith and the teachings
of his Church seriously. Finally, Sullivan's thesis hinges on the claim
that legalizing homosexual marriage would have a conservatizing influence
on society as a whole.

Sullivan begins his book with a poignant memoir of growing up gay.
He describes the pain and embarrassment he experienced in his struggles
to come to terms with his homosexuality; his determination, once his desires
became undeniable, to remain celibate in accordance with his faith; the
explosive mix of joy and confusion he experienced when he had his first
homosexual experience at age twenty-three.

From this autobiographical opening, Sullivan turns to what he considers
the four prevailing attitudes toward homosexuality. These range from the
authoritarian "prohibitionists," who consider homosexuality an
abomination warranting legal punishment, to the anarchistic "liberationists,"
who reject the very distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality
as merely semantics. In between lie the "conservatives," who
combine private tolerance of homosexuals with public disapproval of homosexuality;
and the "liberals," who speak a language of victimhood and look
to the state to enforce private tolerance.

Sullivan analyzes each of these attitudes and concludes that they have
all proven ineffective in developing a workable public position on homosexuality.
Instead, he offers a political remedy that he claims will transcend the
divisiveness. His solution is unique, Sullivan explains, in focusing exclusively
on the actions of the "public neutral state." The state-but only
the state-would have to treat homosexuals and heterosexuals with perfect
equality. This would mean repealing anti- sodomy laws, permitting homosexuals
to serve in the military on the same terms as heterosexuals, including
lessons about homosexuality in public school sex-education programs, and
legalizing homosexual marriage and divorce.

Sullivan claims that, since he does not seek to bar discrimination
against homosexuals in the private sector, there would be "no cures
or reeducation, no wrenching private litigation, no political imposition
of tolerance; merely a political attempt to enshrine formal public equality,
whatever happens in the culture and society at large." This solution,
he adds, has the virtue of respecting religion; as part of the "private
sector," churches can take whatever positions they like on homosexuality.

Is there such a thing as a purely "public" solution to the
question of homosexuality that leaves the "private" realm untouched?
We know Sullivan does not really believe this, because his entire argument
in favor of legalized homosexual marriage hinges on the recognition that
public law is the most powerful tool for shaping individual attitudes.
The core assumption of Virtually Normal-and a compelling one, too-is
that the absence of public laws granting homosexuals full equality
has helped create a culture in which homosexuality is considered dirty
or sinful, and in which homosexuals are deemed incapable of loving each
other with dignity and commitment. As Sullivan rightly observes, the surest
way to reverse the trickle-down effect of this message would be to stand
the current law on its head. Far from being a simple matter of what the
"neutral liberal state should do in public matters," then, public
law is for Sullivan the crucial tool of social transformation.

Thus Sullivan notes that the existence of gay marriage would be an "unqualified
social good" for homosexuals in providing role models for children
coming to terms with their sexuality. As gay marriage "sank into the
subtle background consciousness of a culture, its influence would be felt
quietly but deeply among gay children. For them, at last, there would be
some kind of future; some older faces to apply to their unfolding lives,
some language in which their identity could be properly discussed, some
rubric by which it could be explained-not in terms of sex, or sexual practices,
or bars, or subterranean activity, but in terms of their future life stories,
their potential loves, their eventual chance at some kind of constructive
happiness."

The influence of gay marriage, Sullivan believes, would not only make
it easier to grow up gay, but would actually change how adult homosexuals
conduct their lives. He acknowledges that many homosexual men are self-
centered and promiscuous. According to Sullivan, though, "there is
nothing inevitable at all about a homosexual leading a depraved life."
Homosexuals simply lack the proper "social incentives" not to
be depraved. Once same-sex marriage is the law, Sullivan predicts, most
homosexuals would enter into marriage "with as much (if not more)
commitment as heterosexuals."

But is that really true? Sullivan does not address the fact that most
lesbians, who grow up facing the same stigmas and the same lack of role
models as male homosexuals, live conventional lives and form long-term
monogamous relationships. Why, with gay men, are quasi-marriages the exception
to the rule? On this key point, Sullivan sends us a mixed message.

On the one hand, Virtually Normal presents a very sanitized
picture of male homosexual life; there are no details of the gay subculture
to repel heterosexual readers and make them less amenable to Sullivan's
political proposals. Even Sullivan's chapter on "The Liberationists"
does not include those we have come to associate with that term (the strident
gay-rights activists or flamboyant gay liberationists) but focuses instead
on a ragtag group of theoreticians influenced by French philosophy. Sullivan
makes every effort to portray homosexuals as sharing the same emotions,
longings, and dreams as heterosexuals.

Yet in the closing pages of his book, Sullivan undermines his own argument.
In the final chapter he returns to the opening chapter's personal tone
and reflects on some of the strengths he sees in the contemporary homosexual
community. He asserts that "homosexual relationships, even in their
current, somewhat eclectic form, may contain features that could nourish
the broader society as well." The "solidity and space" of
gay relationships "are qualities sometimes lacking in more rote, heterosexual
couplings." Moreover, the "openness of the contract makes it
more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds." As Sullivan
puts it, there is "more likely to be a greater understanding of the
need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a
woman; and again, the lack of children gives gay couples greater freedom."

Sullivan suggests that gay marriage would do well to retain some of
this "openness":

I believe strongly that marriage should be made available to everyone,
in a politics of strict public neutrality. But within this model, there
is plenty of scope for cultural difference. There is something baleful
about the attempt of some gay conservatives to educate homosexuals and
lesbians into an uncritical acceptance of a stifling model of heterosexual
normality. The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten
their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to
miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness.

Rote? Stifling? Moralistic? These are strange epithets to come
upon in the final pages of a book whose goal is to convince readers that
homosexuals want to marry and deserve to marry; that homosexual love is
as dignified as heterosexual love; that it is inhumane not to allow the
dignity of this love to find fruition in marriage; that marriage is so
venerable an institution that it is single-handedly capable of leading
men out of lives of empty promiscuity into unions of commitment and fidelity.
Suddenly we learn, almost as an afterthought, that the institution of marriage
may have to change to accommodate the special needs of homosexuals.

At first glance, it seems odd that Sullivan would be so eager to support
an institution for which he seems to have serious reservations. But Sullivan
is more interested in marriage as a symbol than as an institution. On its
most fundamental level, Virtually Normal is not about politics or
ideas, but about emotions: Sullivan's overwhelming priority is to spare
future generations the suffering he experienced. His argument for gay marriage
is memorable, not as a cry for equal access to the covenant of marriage,
but as a fervent hope that some day the stigma may be removed from homosexuality.

Sullivan is probably right that his proposals would make it easier
for young homosexuals to accept themselves. But it could make adolescence
a rougher time for everyone: children confronted with two equally legitimate
images of adult sexual roles would be rudderless for many years, and no
one knows what personal or social toll would result from this prolonged
period of sexual confusion.

Nor does Sullivan take seriously the question of how children would
be raised by same-sex parents, and what long-term effects this upbringing
might have on their emotional and sexual development. Sullivan addresses
only one sentence to this complicated subject: "There is no evidence
that shows any deleterious impact on a child brought up by two homosexual
parents." He does not discuss the practical implications of his reform
for foster care, adoption, child-custody suits, and the like.

And while Sullivan would presumably not consider this a social "cost,"
policymakers would have to grapple with the fact that legalizing gay marriage
would probably increase the number of homosexuals overall. Any societal
influence that is strong enough to be "felt deeply" by children
who are destined to become homosexual is also going to be felt by children
whose sexual orientation is less certain. Even if Sullivan is correct in
guessing that an individual's sexual orientation is firmly established
by the age of five or six (a debatable point), this would hardly mean that
sexual orientation is immune from social influence.

Finally, as many of Sullivan's "conservative" thinkers point
out, placing gay marriage on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage
might end up weakening marriage as an institution. Sullivan offers a particularly
unsatisfying response to this concern. Because homosexuals "have no
choice but to be homosexual," he declares, "they are not choosing
that option over heterosexual marriage; and so they are not sending any
social signals that heterosexual family life should be denigrated."

This answer misses the point of the pro-family argument. Conservatives
do not fear that legalizing gay marriage would send heterosexuals the message
that they are settling for second best. Conservatives are concerned that
the more society broadens the definition of "marriage"- and some
would argue that the definition has already been stretched to the breaking
point-the less seriously it will be taken by everyone.

If Virtually Normal is any indication, this fear is warranted.
When all is said and done, Sullivan is not just interested in admitting
a new group of people to marriage (although that would be revolutionary
enough). He wants to redefine marriage to accommodate a particular lifestyle.
Sullivan's willingness to jettison the monogamous aspect of marriage (and
what more important aspect is there?), and his suggestion that heterosexuals
should rethink their own "moralistic" and "stifling"
notions of marriage: these are the "social signals" that worry
conservatives. In short, Sullivan's book beautifully engages our sympathy
for the difficulties homosexuals encounter in our society, but it is unpersuasive
in its argument that gay marriage would be a conservatizing force.

Elizabeth Kristol, a writer living in
Cincinatti, has published articles and reviews in Commentary, the
Washington Post, and other publications.